Most people don't think much about judges until they're standing in front of one. Then, all of a sudden, they care a lot about whether that judge is fair.

That's why the list of judges on your ballot this fall matters. Next to each name is a simple question: should this judge keep the job? Many voters skip it. I hope you won't. That question is part of a system Colorado voters created 60 years ago, and the League of Women Voters of Colorado helped lead the way.

Colorado picks its judges through what's called merit selection. Judges don't run party campaigns. Governors can't hand out judge jobs as favors. Instead, a group of citizens checks out the people who apply. The governor picks from the best few. Then voters decide whether each judge stays. This is one of the League's proudest wins, and it helps keep Colorado's courts fair.

How merit selection works in Colorado

Almost every state judge in Colorado gets the job the same way. (Denver County Court is the one exception. The mayor picks those judges, also from a list made by a citizen group.) There are four steps.

1. Citizens check out the applicants. When a judge's seat opens up, a nominating commission has 30 days to act. It reads applications, talks to people who know the applicants, and holds interviews. Then it sends the governor a short list of the best choices. Each local commission has seven members who live in that area. Four of them can't be lawyers. A separate statewide group handles the Colorado Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals. In every case, most members are not lawyers.
2. The governor picks from that list. The governor has 15 days to choose one person from the list. The governor can't pick anyone else. If the governor doesn't decide in time, the Chief Justice of the Colorado Supreme Court makes the choice.
3. Judges get a report card. Since 1988, special commissions have reviewed every judge who is up for a vote. Most of these members aren't lawyers, either. They survey lawyers, jurors, and court staff. They watch judges at work. Then they say whether each judge "meets" or "does not meet" the standards. You can read these reviews in the voter guide that comes in the mail before each election.
4. Voters decide if the judge stays. After at least two years on the job, a judge's name goes on the ballot. There's no opponent and no party label. Voters just say yes or no. If voters say yes, the judge serves a full term. That's four years for county judges, six for district judges, eight for Court of Appeals judges, and ten for Supreme Court justices. If voters say no, the process starts over.

Colorado also has a separate system for complaints about judges who break the rules. In 2024, voters made it stronger by passing Amendment H. It created an independent board of judges, lawyers, and regular citizens to hear these cases.

How the League helped build it

For its first 90 years as a state, Colorado elected its judges, and they ran as Democrats or Republicans. To win, judges needed help from their party and money from donors. Many people worried that judges were picked for their political ties, not their skills. The Colorado Bar Association, a group of lawyers, started pushing for a better way in the 1940s. The League of Women Voters of Colorado joined the fight in 1957.

The change didn't come from the state legislature. Lawmakers updated the courts in 1962, but they kept judicial elections. So in 1966, the League, the Bar Association, and other groups took the idea straight to the voters. Colorado lets citizens put a question on the ballot, and that's what they did. League members helped explain the plan to voters all over the state. That November, voters passed Amendment 3 with 53 percent of the vote. It changed the Colorado Constitution and created the system described above. It also set up a commission to handle complaints about judges.

The League has kept working to protect this system. In 2006, a ballot measure called Amendment 40 would have put term limits on Colorado's top judges. Critics said it would push out experienced judges and keep good lawyers from applying. The League joined Republicans, Democrats, lawyers, and other civic groups to fight it, and voters rejected it. The League also helped celebrate the system's 40th birthday in 2006 and its 50th in 2016.

Why it matters

Courts can protect our rights only if we trust judges to follow the law, not their donors or their party. Merit selection is built to earn that trust.

• It keeps big money away from judges. Look at what judge elections have turned into in other states. In 2025, a race for one seat on Wisconsin's Supreme Court cost close to $100 million. That made it the most expensive judge race in American history. The record before that? The same court's race just two years earlier. Much of the money came from outside groups and from people outside Wisconsin. When a judge needs millions of dollars to win, anyone who walks into that courtroom has reason to wonder who the judge owes. Colorado judges don't raise campaign money at all.
• It puts skills first. Commissions look at each applicant's experience, character and fairness before the governor ever sees a name. A governor can't just give the job to a friend or a donor.
• It keeps judges answerable to the people. Colorado judges don't serve for life. They face the voters again and again. And voters get a fair, nonpartisan review of each judge's work before they decide.
• It lets regular people take part. Most members of every nominating and review commission are not lawyers. People from every part of Colorado help pick and review the judges in their own communities.

This ties straight to the League's mission. State courts decide cases about voting rights, voting maps, and how elections are run. Those decisions should come from judges picked for their skill and fairness, not judges who campaigned on how they'd rule.

How Colorado compares

States pick their judges in very different ways. Colorado is one of a small group that uses merit selection for every kind of court. Missouri came up with the idea in 1940. Colorado was one of four states to adopt it in the 1960s, and about a dozen more followed later. Only 14 states, plus Washington, D.C., use merit selection for all their judges. Five states still elect all of their judges through partisan elections.

Method How judges get the job How they keep it Examples

Merit selection (Colorado) Citizens check applicants; Yes-or-no vote, with a public Colorado, Missouri

governor picks from a short list review of their work

Party elections Candidates run as Democrats Win re-election Texas, Alabama

or Republicans

Nonpartisan elections Candidates run without party Win re-election Wisconsin

labels, but parties and outside

groups often spend big

Governor appoints Governor picks; lawmakers Get reappointed or New Jersey

approve approved again

Legislature picks State lawmakers choose Lawmakers choose again South Carolina, Virginia

Federal courts President picks; U.S. Senate Serve for life All federal judges

approves

Serve for life

Many states mix these methods. For example, they might appoint judges for higher courts but elect local judges. Here's what makes Colorado's system stand out:

• It covers every court. Some states use citizen commissions only for their higher courts. Colorado uses them for local and state courts alike.
• Regular citizens are the majority. People who aren't lawyers outnumber lawyers on every commission.
• Deadlines keep politics out. The commission and the governor both have strict time limits. If the governor stalls, the Chief Justice steps in.
• Voters get real information. Colorado was an early leader in giving voters official reviews of each judge's work. Very few states combine citizen commissions, public reviews and yes-or-no votes for every judge.

Every voter’s part in the system

Sixty years ago, League members and their partners trusted Colorado voters with a big question about how courts should work. Voters chose fairness over politics. The system they built still needs us.

This fall, read the reviews of each judge in your voter guide before you vote. Don't leave that part of your ballot blank. Think about applying to serve on a nominating or review commission when there's an opening near you. And if someone tries to weaken our courts' independence, ask who would gain from it.

Merit selection isn't about one party or the other. It's a promise. When any Coloradan stands in front of a judge, that judge should be there because of what they know and how fairly they serve, not because of who paid for their campaign. The League helped make that promise in 1966. We’re keeping it.

See: www.knowyourjudge.com